SEAS Employee Council Rewards & Recognition Survey Question 1

Transcription

1 SEAS Employee Council Rewards & Recognition Survey Question 1 Do you feel it is important to make the mination letters and supporting materials for Rewards and Recognition anymous by whiting out the names? 63.9% % 22 answered question 61 skipped question 2 Do you feel it is important to make the mination letters and supporting materials for Rewards and Recognition anymous by whiting out the names?

2 SEAS Employee Council Rewards & Recognition Survey Question 2 Do you have issues with members of the SEAS Employee Council being involved in the evaluation of the minations? 43.3% % 34 answered question 60 skipped question 3 Do you have issues with members of the SEAS Employee Council being involved in the evaluation of the minations?

3 SEAS Employee Council Rewards & Recognition Survey Question 3 Do you agree with the way award amounts were divided up last year, with three levels of awards? The levels included one overal winner ($2000), 4 second top winners ($1000 each) and 10 additional winners ($500 each) 31.1% % 42 answered question 61 skipped question 2 Do you agree with the way award amounts were divided up last year, with three levels of awards? The levels included one overal winner ($2000), 4 second top winners ($1000 each) and 10 additional winners ($500 each)

4 SEAS Employee Council Rewards & Recognition Survey Question 4 Would you rather see one award amount (e.g., $500) for all winners, thereby having more winners? 75.4% % 15 answered question 61 skipped question 2 Would you rather see one award amount (e.g., $500) for all winners, thereby having more winners?

5 SEAS Employee Council Rewards & Recognition Survey Question 5 Should self-minations be allowed? 43.5% % 35 answered question 62 skipped question 1 Should self-minations be allowed?

6 SEAS Employee Council Rewards & Recognition Survey Question 6 Should there be a cap on the number of support letters per mination? 55.7% % 27 if, how many? (enter a number) 34 answered question 61 skipped question 2 Should there be a cap on the number of support letters per mination?

7 SEAS Employee Council Rewards & Recognition Survey Question 7 Please add other thoughts you have about the Rewards and Recognition process. 25 answered question 25 skipped question 38 Number Text 1 thanks. Could we call it something like, "SEAS Outstanding Contributor of the Year" or something like that so 2 folks can put it on our resume if they win. After t receiving a raise in 3 years, I think it would be nice to divide the money equally among all 3 staff in SEAS. I think this would boost morale. I recommend only one person, the employee's supervisor, minate their employee for this award. 4 There shouldn't be a contest to get as many minations as possible to be recognized. 5 I think it great to be recognized by your peers. Self minations should be designated as such; it is relevant that supervisors or others that work w/ that employee did or did t support or minate. It is possible self minator would have support ltr from supervisor/co-worker. Support Letters from supervisor or dept chair should be considered important, i.e. contrast to some self-mination extolling their own contributions. The number of support letters depends on person's impact on others, DO staff report to a number of depts; where dept staff may only have 2-4 letters: 2,3-5, 7 Allow for option that supervisors or others who wish to submit confidential letter to Deans Aylor/Thurneck (eg negative or n-support) could do so without the Employee Council members to see such negative info. Consequently, the support letters associated with names likely do t pose problems -- kwing the candidate name facilitates the comm members discussing cases. It is expected that confidentiality would be maintained -- we do 6 that in our jobs; it is understood that is t always true. Totally unfair to staff members who do t have a willing superior or a superior with excellant 7 writing skills 8 I don't care for the process used last year. It does t help staff morale in this time of salary freezes to see less people receiving awards (especially larger awards). There were many others that probably worked equally as hard and showed as much dedication, but were t minated because they didn't feel comfortable minating themselves and didn't work with someone who had the time 9 or inclination to make a mination. There has to be a way to reward people for the right things. The people who take care of the day to day activities and really keep the departments going need a boost too... t just the ones who fall into the special assignments or whose boss can write the best letter. I say give the Chairs a list of their staff and ask them to give everyone something, based on their value to the TEAM. There is too much looking out only for one's self. Someone who shows up every day and does what is asked of them is much more valuable than someone who can plan one event or go to a class once a year. Then, everyone needs to keep their business to themselves and t share what they got with everyone else. The facts are, it is a reward. And, matter how it is done, it is done with the best intentions. So, even though I have said these things, I also very much appreciate the thought and 10 the effort that goes into implementing the program. How about 4 winners at $1000 each and 14 second place winners at $500 each. Do away with the 11 $2000 prize. This way you have more top winners and more second place winners. I don't have a problem with people being recognized for their contributions. I think it is a sad state when a small number of employees determine what is best for all. Recognize employees, give them awards and recognition. It is a difficult ecomy and any way that recognizes true contributions 12 should be used. Although the names are "whited out", it can be obvious who the minees are based on what their job duties are and where the support letters are from. I just don't think staff members should be 13 deciding which staff members get awards. 14 R&R is great but it's substitute for real raises!

8 Clear guidelines should be established for minations to include reasons for the mination and/or refer directly to the minee s strengths and talents pertaining to their job. Clear guidelines should be established and published for all SEAS classified/university employees to understand how minations will be reviewed and what criteria will be used to decide winners. Guidelines should t be changed after minations have been submitted. If selection committee is divided into groups then all the groups should be using the same guidelines and criteria for recommending winners. Winners names should be published but t necessarily the reason for winning an award. Eligibility requirements should be established for minees What constitutes a mination? Is it a letter? Is it a form? Is it a memo signed by 40 people like a petition? 1) Winners names should be kept confidential. Publishing the names causes friction between coworkers. 2) If there are award levels like last year, then the criteria for each level needs to be kwn so people will kw why people were chosen for the different levels. Last year, it was unclear why people were singled out and given more money. 3) Self-minations should t be the sole mination for a person to receive a reward. There should be accompanying minations from the person's supervisor, coworkers, etc. because these rewards are given to employees who have done something for the good of the engineering school. Perhaps whatever money there is could be divvied up among all eligible staff. It was painful last year to have whatever joy there might have been in winning so undermined by the undercurrents of resentment and jealousy. Just t worth it. I have discussed last year's Rewards and Recognition process with members of the SEAS Employee Council, and I was told that the quality of the writing in the mination played a significant role in the selection process. I strongly urge you to set up a learning session for staff in the art of writing a Rewards and Recognition mination. This would put staff who write minations on more equal ground with faculty who are writing minations. I recommend that you get someone like Kay Neeley from STS to lead the session. Thanks for soliciting our feedback. I don't believe that support letters should be limited; however I believe that the number of letters should equal to the value of "ONE" good letter. Those that get numerous minations basically have petitioned their own votes. With those votes it appears that they're they most eligible. That's t necessarily the case in those very hard workers, that are the quiet workers behind the scene. They're the ones that should be recognized by their own supervisor t by their peers alone. One is minimal "Recognition." There must be other agreeable ways to ackwledge the accomplishment. How about a nice luncheon? The "Rewards" are much appreciated! This more of popularity contest. Friends vote for friends. Bosses vote for their employee. I say give each employee in SEAS $5 and call it a day! Maybe have some type of template reference letter form that is standard for all mination support letters. I was one of the SEAS Employee Council members reviewing the support letters last year. It seems like the better the support letter was written the higher the ratings were for the candidate. With the budget cuts and increased pay, it would nice if more than just three people could win something. Take the amount awarded to SEAS and divide it by # of classified staff = everyone has earned an award This is a process that does t have any bearing on the performance of the employee. It only depend on how many people in your department like you or t, even if you are doing thing. The person getting the award does t only mean they are deserving of the award, but the professors likes him/her best for whatever reason